Category Archives: Politics

I believe a President should leave the country better than he found it. That’s not unreasonable. But in my lifetime, three Presidents have failed that test. Lyndon Johnson left us mired in Vietnam. Richard Nixon extracted us from Vietnam and did other good things, but those pluses were outweighed by the nation-shattering disillusionment of Watergate. And then George W. Bush.

Jimmy Carter was not a great president, but he did some good things and left us slightly better off than he found us, particularly in putting us some distance from the bummer days of Watergate. George H. W. Bush did no harm. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton (I know, you object to me saying anything good about Clinton) left America in much better shape than they found it.

George W. is, in my book, the worst president of my lifetime (not the worst ever, just the worst since I’ve been around). I voted for him twice, thank you. He entered office in 2001 with enormous promise and almost unprecedented advantages–control of both the House and Senate, a sympathetic Supreme Court, a majority of governorships, a severely reduced national debt (thanks to Clinton and the dot-com boom), and a leaderless Democratic Party. But to me, he has squandered it all, accomplishing practically nothing. He’ll blame it on 9/11, which was a true-blue disruption in his Presidency. But I don’t think history will let him cop-out with that excuse. With many issues, Bush has been very intentional in producing lots of bad outcomes.

Pluto is a planet only by popular opinion. Many astronomers would say it’s more a round chunk of ice, and that it’s smaller than several similar objects discovered well beyond Pluto. A fellow named Mike Brown has discovered 15 such “planets,” some of them twice as far from the sun as Pluto is. He’s not in favor of giving them planet status. And yet, if tiny Pluto is considered to be a planet, why shouldn’t Xena, a large round object which is even larger than Pluto?

In the past, Brown argued for eliminating Pluto as a planet. But public support for Pluto–not based on science, but on mere sentiment; it would be like taking statehood away from Alaska–was too strong. Pluto, since its discovery in 1930, has been part of our culture. And Brown, being pragmatic, says, “There are places where science reigns, and others where culture reigns. Science doesn’t have to win this one. I’m willing to give up the hard-nosed science view of what a planet is in lieu of a cultural view.”

I like that approach, and I see it applying to Christian political action.

We live in a secular, religiously pluralistic culture that values freedom of religion. That’s bedrock America. But Christians constantly fight for causes which go against those values, advocating things which support our religion (Christianity) at the expense of other views. I’m of the opinion that we should just say, “On this one we can let the culture win.”

For instance, I’ve never supported the hubbub over school prayer. Maybe it was okay once upon a time, but the culture has moved on. Prayer doesn’t belong in schools. That just demeans prayer. Let this one go. Kids can still pray if they want. I did.

Nativity scenes on public property? That goes against religious pluralism, which I think is a much greater value in a secular society like ours. Likewise for posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses. What does it gain us? It does offend other religious groups. Maybe they’re being overly sensitive, but that’s okay. Better to live in peace and be able to submit to the other’s desires (a Christian concept about which the Religious Right is clueless), than to stubbornly insist on a “Christianity First” approach.

Including “In God We Trust” on our money, and “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Those aren’t battles I care to fight. Besides, they are lies. We’re not a nation under God, at least not anymore. Why would I say it as part of the Pledge, which is actually a display of loyalty toward my country? I can pledge my loyalty to the USA without pretending that we operate under God’s authority.

But other battles are still worth fighting. I don’t want to see gay marriage legalized. I would be surprised if it’s not legal throughout the country in 20 years. The culture will have moved on, and we’ll need to deal with it (just as we dealt with the end of prohibition). But the inevitability doesn’t mean we should cave in now.

Some issues, too, are just a matter of fairness. Like the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. We have a right to fairness. So do Buddhists and Muslims and atheists and all the rest (which¬† means if we can display our religious symbols on public property and post them in courthouses, so can they).

It’s okay to fight on behalf of the public good, too, as in opposing gambling, the legalization of drugs, pornography, abortion, racism, and global warming. Those go beyond religion, and it’s not necessarily necesssary that we craft them as religious causes and thereby exclude people who also oppose those things, but for more secular reasons.

We white evangelical Christians could, if we wanted, even fight on behalf of the poor. But alas, I’ve strayed to the back burner.

Greg Boyd can’t stay out of trouble. First, he nearly got himself booted from his denomination, the Baptist General Conference, for advocating Open Theism. That’s the issue which caused a ruckus at my denomination’s school, Huntington University, when one of its professors became a leading advocate of Open Theism, which questions whether God fully knows the future.

Now Boyd is upsetting evangelicals by criticizing how we entangle Christianity with conservative politics. On this issue, I’m right with him. There is a cost for Boyd: the church he founded in Minneapolis in 1992 lost about 1000 of its 5000 members after he preached a series of sermons on “The Cross and the Sword” and later published a book called The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church.

The New York Timespublished a July 30 article about Boyd and this controversy. It’s quite interesting. I’ve been sensing plenty of sentiment for Boyd’s views in the evangelical world. I’m certainly in his camp. It pleases me to know that many evangelicals are saying, “Enough! Christianity and Republican politics are not the same thing!” Even though it could cost the Republican party big-time in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I think one of George Bush’s many negative legacies will be the way the previously taken-for-granted evangelical base of the Republican party began crumbling–or even openly revolting–under his administration’s cynical manipulation. It’s nice to see so many Christian leaders, like Greg Boyd, refusing to be partisan yes-men for the Republican Party. But if you take a stand like that, don’t expect to get away unscathed.

One reason I love going to Branson is the patriotism which permeates nearly all of the shows. I absolutely love that. I’m proud to be an American. But it’s a matter of context. Branson is a secular venue and the message is more “love of country” than “rubber-stamping of Republican causes.” There’s a difference.

Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, bless his sincere Christian heart, in 1998 sent Jack Abramoff a letter asking for help in making business contacts. He said he was done with electoral politics and, “I need to start humping in corporate accounts.” I am so very very proud of our Christian spokespersons.

Yes, we have some legitimate Christians claiming to speak for the rest of us–people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, and James Dobson. But they rarely make me proud. These guys are hugely influential gatekeepers to Christian audiences. Therefore, political operatives and lobbyists suck up to them, coddle them, do whatever it takes to gain their ear. And when Pat and Jerry and the Jims speak, I’m afraid they too often parrot the sentiments of somebody lurking in the background. Which may explain why they say so many stupid things.

Then there are other conservative voices who cloak themselves in conservative values, speak Christianese, know how to push Christian buttons, and pretend to be Christians on TV–people like Ann Coulter (who can write a book about God and politics without quoting any Scripture), Tom Delay, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, and legions of political operatives. Personally, I don’t trust any of them. I think most of them just use Christians as pawns in political games (because that’s what they’re paid to do). They conduct seminars on how to mobilize us, how to get our dander up, how to extract money from us, and how to generally use us. Call me cynical. Frankly, I’ve just had enough of this stuff.

Which is why I shed no tears when Ralph Reed, running for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, lost in the primary last week. Interesting things happen to morality and values when they become entwined with politics. Reed, once the baby-faced posterboy of the Christian right as head of the Christian Coalition, was a good friend of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who will be wearing stripes for a while. Abramoff asked Reed to mobilize Christians against gambling. Reed got his network of pastors and laypersons to start a grassroots war against gambling, and collected a $5.3 million paycheck from Abramoff. Now it turns out that Abramoff was actually working for an Indian tribe, and the money came from casino revenues. The Indians didn’t want to ban gambling; they just used Reed’s grassroots war to scare away new competition.

Time magazine, in writing about the downfall of Ralph Reed, says that to Reed, “Christian voters were pawns in a game of power swapping.” Now, Reed ended up being a pawn. He hoped to move from Lieutenant Governor to Governor to…Senator? President? Now he’s done, and will need to return to, uh, what was that word he used?

Reed concluded his concession speech with these words: “Stay in the fight, don’t retreat and our values will win in November.” Well, let’s hope it is more “our” values than the values of Reed and all the other charlatans who play gullible Christians like a violin.

One of the great surprises of my life is that my country has become a champion of state-sponsored torture. I know my wording makes you grimace. But the USA is a world state, we do commit or allow torture (while denying it), and our top leaders oppose legal restrictions on torture, so what can I say? Our wimpy allies in other Western nations are disturbed and dismayed, failing to see the redeeming qualities of torture, a practice with a long and distinguished history. I’m proud to belong to a country unafraid to buck world opinion and do what it feels is right.

But at the same time, I’m having bouts of guilt, inexplicable difficulty accepting the obvious merits of torturing foreigners. As much as I fight these impulses, desperately trying to follow the moral leadership of Cheney and Rummy, I find myself too often succumbing to feelings which can only be described as those of a bleeding-heart, raghead-loving, weak-kneed, misguided moralist. So many of our great religious figures, like Jerry Falwell and Tom Delay, fully support the application of torture. And where are the Christian voices speaking out against torture? Nada. My misgivings obviously betray a faulty conscience.

I remember a quote from one military officer who said, “After 9/11 we opened the door to a little torture, and a whole lot of torture walked through.”

To defend torture, people always trot out the “burning fuse” argument: if a nuclear bomb will explode in an hour and a guy definitely knows where it’s located, shouldn’t you be able to torture the information out of him? My response: yes. On that I agree with Cheney et al.

But this is an extreme scenario which, as far as I know (and what do I know?), hasn’t occurred. Yet we’ve tortured a lot of people, and create secret prisons in other countries to facilitate it. Are all of these people sheltering atomic bombs? Well, no. We are torturing for lesser reasons, sometimes just going on fishing expeditions to see if the poor bloke does, indeed, know something useful, which the interrogator discovers upon finding the proper mixture of question and electrical stimuli. If we only tortured people when there was an imminent threat, hundreds of shadowy CIA patriots would be out of work. They need to ply their trade, to keep in practice for when a true burning fuse situation arises. And so they round up hapless Iraqis and Talibanis who might know something about somebody who might know something about something else…or might not. How can we know without the use of creative coercion?

Fortunately, our enlightened Administration determined that we’re exempt from the Geneva Conventions in this case. Astute legal rationalizers like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales determined that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters don’t technically qualify as Prisoners of War, so we’ve got our butts covered. When some ignoramus (like me) offers an objection about how the Geneva Conventions forbids the torture of POWs, Cheney or Rumsfield will set them straight about the true legal status of these detainers. “They aren’t technically POWs,” Cheney says. And the proper response is to nod and say, “Oh, okay.”

I, on the other hand, being wimpy and unenlightened, find myself asking, “Therefore…?” Therefore…we can string them up with piano wire and attach electrodes? Apparently so. Therefore…all morality constraints are out the door? Yep. Since they aren’t technically POWs, we are excused from humane treatment. “Get the pincers out! These guys don’t qualify!” If the Geneva Conventions doesn’t apply, torture is obviously justified. Why can’t I get that through my skull?

Then there’s the “rendition” program, where we secretly send victims to Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia and let them brutally extract the information we want, thereby keeping our own hands clean. Because of unenlightened world opinion concerning the valuable role of torture, our Administration feels compelled to wrap itself in multiple layers of deniability, but it’s easy to turn up information about the rendition program. The New Yorker, Time, and Newsweek have all carried stories about it. I’ve read lots of documented stories on the internet. Amnesty International can tell many such stories. Cheney and Condi will look you in the face and say, with carefully parsed words, that we don’t do this kind of thing. And how can anyone not believe Condi? I mean, she’s a concert pianist! But the evidence is overwhelming. We just can’t openly fess up as a nation, and I understand that.

The New Yorker (some of the best reporting in any magazine; a publication renowned for its fact-checking department) ran an in-depth story about a year ago which told story after story about rendering Arabs to other countries. American officers (speaking off the record) bragged about the efficiency of the Egyptians. They could give the Egyptians a list of questions in the morning, and by evening they would have written answers. And suddenly, Tom Ridge is raising the color threat level due to “reliable” information. A few people, innocent or not, happened to die while in foreign prisons. I realize that, hey, that’s just the cost of Freedom. But my defective conscience plagues me.

The Clinton administrative started the rendition program. But lacking the moral backbone of the Bush Administration, they used it only with people already under indictment. The Bush Administrative is less inhibited. Just about anyone is fair game. They’ll say, “This fellow isn’t a bad guy, but we think he might know something about a bad guy. So let’s abduct him, spirit him away to Egypt for a few months, and let the Egyptians see what they can find. If it turns out the guy doesn’t know anything after all…well, sorry about that. Water under the bridge?” Again, it’s a matter of fishing expeditions, torturing people to learn stuff that has nothing to do with a burning fuse.

Sometimes it’s not technically “torture,” but just plain cruelty. That’s what we saw at Abu Ghraib. That’s what seems to have happened in the early days of Gitmo. Just plain, unadorned, gratuitous cruelty. That’s what my country does nowadays, and I’m sure it’s somewhat of a “trickle-down” consequence of allowing actual torture. Oh, I’m not so naive as to think it didn’t happen in the pre-9/11 world. But the open defense of torture (while denying that it happens) is a new wrinkle in our national conscience. And shame on me for doubting the wisdom of our leaders, all of whom talk shiningly about their faith in God, and no doubt force themselves to refrain from using the F-word when they pray.

What would Jesus do? That’s always an interesting question. Jesus would probably say, “Sure, douse him in water and hook up the electrodes. But let’s build a secret prison in Thailand and do it there. Don’t want to pollute my Most Favored Nation.” Of course that’s what Jesus would say. When he looks down on a 19-year-old Talibani, laying naked on a stone floor in a dank cell in some east European country, hungry and alone and scared, taken from the cell twice a day for lengthy interrogations with the added bonus of torture and general physical abuse–do you think Jesus is bothered by that? Of course not. Jesus is a patriot. Jesus loves the USA. He would support our president, who talks to Him regularly.

Nevertheless, while my mind understands why torture is necessary and good, I find myself inexplicably embarrassed by my country’s embrace of redemptive torture. The na√Øve wimp inside me argues that, as the only remaining superpower, we had the unprecedented ability to assert moral leadership in the world, but that our embrace of torture has sacrificed that ability in the eyes of the world. I’d like the other nations of the world to know, “Hey, we’re better than this.” But shame on me. I’m just a hopeless idealist, totally removed from the Real World.

I realize that we evangelical Christians are supposed to follow the Republican lead in taking a hard line against terrorism and supporting our Christianese-talking President. That’s why our evangelical leaders remain silent about the use of torture (silent, in fact, about anything the Bush administration does which may seem questionable). Sure, John McCain has spoke out against torture, but he was probably brainwashed during his years in North Vietnam, so you can’t really trust him. All things considered, I should just shut up.

I know that Jesus would support torturing people who might (or might not) know something that could lead to someone else who needs their own dose of pain infliction until they cough up another name just to “Make it stop!” I realize that Jesus would support the secret detention centers, that he would fly the plane to Cairo himself to unload some anonymous dude with a hood over his head. I realize that Jesus doesn’t care how we treat children of God if they have embraced Islam. I realize that Jesus, like George and Rummy and Cheney, believes that these fellows don’t qualify for humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, and that we can therefore torture them to our heart’s content. I realize that our spiritual leaders agree with Jesus on all of this.

I guess I’m just a carnal, sniveling, unspiritual excuse for a Christian. I need to try harder.

So online pornographers and the Family Research Council are now on the same side. Sometimes you just have to shake your head in wonderment.

The proposal was to create a new .xxx web extension. Pornographers opposed the idea, because they felt it would make it easy to confine their sites to a seedy area of the web which could be easily blocked off. Internet providers could then block or filter all sites with that extension. It would make it easier to control objectionable websites.

But the Family Research Council argued that creating such a domain extension would “legitimize” the adult entertainment industry. News flash: this industry already exists, and is legitimite. Not respectable, but legitimate. It’s nice that the FRC favored this win-win situation.

A drug is being developed which could prevent a certain cancer in women which kills 5000 women a year. However, Christian groups have opposed it, because it would seemingly “legitimize” non-marital sex (which increases the risk of this cancer). So this life-saving drug faces a battle from right-wing Christians.

The same groups are apprehensive about potential vaccines for HIV/AIDS, because they contend it would only encourage sexual relations. Am I, as a Christian, supposed to oppose an HIV vaccine?

I remember in the 1980s, when religious groups blocked a bill which would have outlawed or restricted certain types of abortion. They argued that since the bill didn’t prevent all abortions, then it was insufficient. So if there are four million abortions in a year (I don’t know the real number), maybe it would have cut the number in half. But these right-wingers felt that it was all four million…or nothing. And so, it was nothing. Pragmatists said, “Let’s save the two million now, and work on the other two million later.” But that would seem like a compromise to the hard-liners. And so, the abortionists and anti-abortionists basically both argued against the bill. Strange.

This afternoon I turned to the back page of this week’s Time magazine, to the essay by Andrew Sullivan. He hooked me with his first line: “Are you a Christian who doesn’t feel represented by the religious right?” Yes, I am. Most vociferously, I am.

Sullivan wrote, “The term ‘people of faith’ has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone….So Christ is a conservative Republican?”

Then I loved this line: “‘My Kingdom is not of this world,’ Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?”

Sullivan then suggested that we coin a new word: Christianism. While Christianity is a religious faith, he proposed Christianism as an ideology, echoing the distinction between Muslim and Islamist. “Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force.” He described Christianism as “the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda.”

I like that. So Tom Delay and Jerry Falwell are Christianists. My own Congressman, I believe, is “merely” a Christian, which is good.

Sullivan said, “I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn’t. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no polical party. It’s time the quiet majority of believers took it back.”

The thing is, Christianists aren’t nearly as visible as they were in the 1980s, during the Moral Majority heydey (which also thrust James Dobson and others, quite willingly, into the political limelight). But the Christianists were na√Øve (and therefore perhaps considerably more pure) back then, novices to politics. They merely wished to stem the cultural slide, not turn us into a theocracy (well, not all of them did, anyway). But today, the Christianists are highly experienced, meticulously organized, thoroughly plugged in to the power centers. They know the strings to pull, the buttons to push to get their all-knowing way. They have become fully intertwined in the political power scene. And I’m sure Jesus is just tickled pink about it.

Now here’s the part of Sullivan’s piece I disagreed with. He said that some Christians believe God is unknowable to our limited minds, and that religious faith is often “interwoven with doubt.” He said many Christians believe we can’t know God’s view on such things as Terry Schiavo, contraception, the role of women, or “the love of a gay couple.” These are the words of someone whose religion doesn’t include a whole lot of Bible study, because the Bible does give us considerable direction regarding social issues. Not always, and not always in line with Republican dogma (like, uh, the poor? ever hear of them, noble Republican?), but Christianity for many of us doesn’t require an undue amount of uncertainty.

So I disagreed with Sullivan that we don’t know how God feels about a lot of things. But most everything else settled well with me. It made for good reading.

There are many reasons that I consider George Bush the worst president of my lifetime. But though I’ve made occasional forays into criticizing GW, I’ve checked my swing many times. While this blog is a trite personal diversion, I’m always conscious of my role as my denomination’s Communications Director, and likewise highly conscious of the fact that United Brethren churches are chiefly populated by conservative Republicans, the type of people who watch Fox News and idolize George and Laura. I don’t want my personal rantings to cause collateral damage to the Bishop, the Church as a whole, or my own official role.

And yet, “Whatever” is designed for my own amusement, and for the past several years, I’ve been highly dis-amused by the shenanigans of GW’s administration, which I strongly believe not only dishonor our country among the nations, but displease God.

So, should I vent? Or should I do what’s needed to be politically correct within my occupational context?

Sometimes I feel like Alan Greenspan, the Fed chief, when he would appear before Congressional committees and speak at length while saying absolutely nothing of consequence, lest he disturb the markets. And having made that comparison, it’s obvious that I take myself way too seriously.

So, I’m going to begin venting. Not because I think it’ll positively affect the earth’s rotation or anything, but because I feel the US needs some evangelical Christian voices, however inconsequential, to buck the Republican rubber-stamping approach we’ve had toward politics. And I realize that a good share of the multitudes of bored people who read this blog won’t be amused.

If a guy in your church regularly drops the F bomb, is he regarded as a spiritual man? Would you put him on the church board? Make him an elder? Give him a Sunday school class to teach? I don’t want to create a spiritual litmus test based on verbal habits. But the Bible does talk about controlling your tongue, and in our society, using the F word is not considered a redeeming social quality, and certainly not descriptive of a man of God.

Matthew 15:18 talks about a man being defiled by what comes out of his mouth, and says that what comes out of the mouth is actually coming from the heart. David connected the two when he told God, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord.”

In my church, a person who drops F bombs wouldn’t be placed in any position of leadership, and wouldn’t be considered a spiritual example. Likewise with other forms of what would be considered profanity, vulgarity, cussing, or however you want to describe it. I suspect the same is true in your church. Almost seems like a biblical no-brainer, doesn’t it?

So why do we excuse it in our presidents? G. W. controls his tongue in public, but is known to use the F word in staff meetings and smaller circles. The same has been true of every president during my lifetime, except for Jimmy Carter. Everyone since Nixon has known how to wield religious language for public consumption. GW certainly has that down. When he can’t think of anything else to say, he throws out something that will earn points with grassroots religious people. (“Who is your favorite philosopher?” “Jesus.”) We evangelicals talk about him as a man of sincere faith, the same way evangelicals used to talk about Nixon and Reagan and GHWB being such fine, outstanding, committed Christians who hob-nobbed with Billy Graham. And yet, when we read accounts of GW using the F word, we excuse it for some reason just as we excused it with all of his predecessors. Whereas we would never excuse it for a person in our local church.

I don’t doubt that GW, at one point, had a life-changing religious experience. But past spiritual vitality is not proof of present spiritual vitality. Once you learn the Christian lingo, you don’t forget it, especially if you’re a politician. You can grow spiritually cold, but still sling religious terminology around to maintain the illusion of ongoing spirituality. We all know how easy it is to fool people. I’m not saying that’s the case with GW. But the Bible clearly states that what emerges from the mouth is evidence of what is in the heart. Nobody at Anchor who is on top of his game spiritually uses the F word. So I’m not inclined to give GW a pass, even if he is the President. Why should the President be held to a lower standard? Should be just the opposite.

Imagine if an official in the Clinton administration publicized the name of a CIA operative, for purely political reasons. We Republicans would have gone balistic. It would be proof of how those liberal Democrats are soft on national defence. We would be totally outraged that someone who puts their life in danger for the sake of the country should be put at risk because Clinton didn’t like the operative’s husband.

Yes, we would be outraged, and justifiably so. So why aren’t we outraged by what the Bush administration did? Is it somehow okay?

I’m outraged. I know the matter has gotten twisted around all kinds of who-said-what-to-whoms. But it obviously started with White House people, and I for one hope they get nailed. We can’t let any administration go around exposing CIA agents. If Scooter Libby was involved–nail the sucker. If Cheney was, or Rove–nail ’em. And if the Republican apologists–Coulter, Hannity, O’Reilly, Fox & Friends, etc.–try to find reason to poo-poo what happened and decry Fitgerald as a witch-hunter: make up your own mind.

My goodness, I’m cranky.

Saw Zorro today. Good movie. Not as good as the first one, but a more than adequate sequel.

And now it’s time to go to bed. SNL is almost over. Stayed up to hear Sheryl Crow sing. Like her stuff. On Weekend Update, Tina Fey said, “According to the latest survey, 66% of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is running the country. The other 34% believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.” Funny.